Well Keith they always told me if the Mare runs ,then the Foal will too.I guarentee there are more poor Democrats,then poor Republicans-Kevin
The loudest, most determined Republicans in my neighborhood are the wealthy wannabes.
@bing
Thanks for bringing Jesse up. Ventura won with less then 37% of the vote over a Republican with 35% and a host of other candidates. In a run off, a conservative coalition would have consolidated votes for the Republican and he would have easily beaten Ventura who had no opposition in his third party. We had the same situation as our present gov. won an election by about the same 37% vote.
Computer models all showed in a two way race agaisnt a popular independent who was next, he would have garnered presious few more, while the independed woul have won walking away. Just this week, he was chastised for cursing and swearing and storming out of a budget meeting when questioned on some of his budget proposals. This is a routine happening for this jokester. He alienates everyone, and like Ventura, profited on a divided election.
Speak in support of run offs, at least for governorships if you really want true representation on the state level.
When it’s possible that as few as a quarter of the people can determine an election winner who has no majority support to govern, something is wrong !
@MikeInNH
I would guess that NH, being as independent as they try to be, could start a movement and others would follow. Run off elections for governorship ! There are precious few now.
http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/runoffelections.html
Here is what capitalism will do to maximize profits
will we get that rich again?
I honestly can’t remember who the republican was that ran against Ventura-I’d have to look it up, but the democrat was Skip Humphrey, son of former Vice President Hubert Humphrey and like God in Minnesota. Both parties were so shocked by it that it served a great good by bringing both parties back to some semblance of reason-at least for a short time. They just couldn’t understand why young people would not vote for a party. Then of course it was all down hill with Paulenty until they all got thrown out.
Might be interesting to see how a run off would work. Actually in the last governors election there was a former repub (Tom Horner) running as an independent that really wasn’t too bad except for his public school stance. A little shake up never hurt anyone.
America abolished slavery right,RK?-Kevin
@bing
The arguement against run off elections is expense. That’s still a small price to pay. The other mitigating factor is the get both Dems and Reps. to agree to it. That always depends upon which party will feel advantaged by a third in the next election. It takes a leap of faith for polititions to actually put the public good before their own…you know how difficult that would be in passing the necessary election laws.
Kevin…America abolished slavery ? Kicking and screaming and as a result of the deaths of over a million of us. Indentured labor and child labor abroad by American companies here is still IMO, a form of slavery…it’s alive and well in some areas. Apple Stock is dependent upon “slavery” if you will. The modern barrier to these practices are the unions which capitalism today is happy vilify. And, education which is increasingly being put out of reach of he middle class, let alone the poor. You want to make our Nation immune from financial ruin ? Inexpensive or free education for ALL from cradle to grave will do it.
Child labor was cheaper for the mill owners than slave labor had been for the cotton growers in the “good ole days,” Kevin. And if a 12 year old was crippled they were sent home and replaced in hours. Replacing a slave would cost $thousands. But the investors of 100 years ago moved manufacturing jobs to the south for cheap labor and had no concern for hiring kids. Kids would never question the authority of their adult bosses or complain. That’s what the industrialists want today and they find it in China and India.
Guys I agree,education is our best shot,to help the people and fairer practices,wheres our morality? it dont hurt to level the field a little bit-Kevin
I don’t think we need runoff elections for a third party to be viable. Think of the advantage here, assuming a third party that is at least half as strong as the current two parties, then the winning candidate would be forced to form a coalition from at least two of the parties. That alone would prevent one party from gridlocking the government.
American voters are channeled toward the demagogues at the far right and far left using emotional issues. There is no incentive to lead toward a sensible middle ground.
Rod you are correct, but the reason this happens is that the middle of the road voters are far less likely to vote in the primaries so the fringe candidates with a dedicated following end up being the only choices in the general election. I personally try to vote in every election, I don’t miss one very often, but the candidates that I vote for in the primaries never win.
The only disadvantage I see with a third party is the chance of having a candidate win with a small percentage of the popular vote,(what happened to the Whigs) what say you with the first runnerup becoming the Vice-President again?-Kevin
I don’t quite see that as a disadvantage as the winner would still be forced to form a coalition with two of the other parties. Runner up as VP, yeah, I think I could live with that.
As much as we try to come up with alternatives, the people will never have a majority electorate guaranteed without run off elections. Everyone wants a simple way out and a split govt. with a vp of another party is not the answer. Second in command are easily frozen out. Run off elections make even the one who can finish at least second, a force to be recond with and have ideas that must be considered. Isn’t that what everyone wants ?
It forces reconciliation not just hypothetical thoughts. Bush won his first term without a majority vote. Both of the other candidates who together, easily represented a majority that would never have considered the fiasco of war with Iraq which has decimated our economy. I’m sure that’s great for neo conservatives when Nader became their electoral hero.
As the parties continue to go to extremes, , there will be more third party candidates but unfortunately, the results will be less then majority winners. Often times, these winners could never win a two way race and yet they still have the potential to win with less then 35. % of the vote. Ask the people of my state and others if a run off wouldn’t be favored in state wide gubernatorial races.
Having non majority candidates represent our govt. as the Tea party does in the house, leads to stagnation and divisiveness. Eventually, govt would be chosen by special interest entirely and not just occasionally if this is allowed to continue.
Democracy is hard. There are no easy solutions for fairness. Run of elections are a fair first step. Anyone who supports the two party system does with the idea that it’s a lot easier to buy support from two parties then 4 or 5. With run offs, you have a better chance of getting more good candidates to choose from.
Yeah,I thought that too,because it would be another check. We simply need more choice,I may be Libertarian ,but I’m also Centrist-IMO there are more gray areas then a lot of people would like to admit,there are some absolutes,but on the other hand things can be a lot different for different people,doesnt always seem right to have the very rich ruling the very poor-Kevin
Kevin
Just a couple of quick questions. . I have several friends who are Libertarian and would like to know these answers to questions that I have never asked them… Who takes care of the uninsured in a libertarian world of whom 30,000 die each year ? Also, because libertarians feel that the central govt. primary role is national defense, how does a well educated populous fit into national defense if it does at all ?
You could make the case that in the national election, the general election is really a run off election, the candidates were chosen in the primary. I really do believe that the average voter just doesn’t understand the importance of the primary election.
Dagosa,no disrespect-but I never said I support the nutty part of the Libertarians,no more then I support all of Ann Rynds nutty ideas,but if you look at her backround you can see where she is coming from on a lot of it.The part of Libertarian I support is freedom from a meddlesome govt,we certainly need a few taxes(did you ever stop to think what makes this bloated ,bullying military possible?).
The Republicans and Conservatives give lip service to limited govt and taxes,then turn around and want to spend on pet projects while cutting taxes on the people who have most of the money-why did they destroy the middle class? you tell me’
As far as taking care of the impoverished,these friends of yours(sounds kinda like Jobs buddies to me) they must have the Ebenezer Scrooge view on the surplus population-this is where I strongly diverge from the Libertarian mindset and excuse me ,Neal Boortzs’s rather rude character assinations at times( even though I agree with him on a lot of things)
I still think our country should adopt a defense policy like Switzerland.(I know having a well armed populace makes the Feds uneasy)-Kevin